John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the Minister to the House. He should be congratulated on the amount of time he spends in the House partaking in debates. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Unfortunately, much of the discussion to date has centred on the timing on this referendum rather than on the substance of the proposal. I hope that with the definitive decision to hold the referendum on 11 June next, the debate will move on. Today, we in this House have the opportunity to move this debate in the direction of the substantive issue, to address the real substance of the amendment and in doing so, set about the process of highlighting the issues in question. This is the only way we will bring clarity to the proposal, which is what is required at this juncture.

If we value our Constitution, its principles and its interpretation, we need honest and reasoned debate. Recently, I spoke in the House about the proposed timing of the referendum and I pleaded with all politicians and candidates in the forthcoming election to refrain from using this debate as a forum for inciting racist views and thinking not only among themselves, but among the public at large. It is necessary to do so again today. Playing with people's emotions on the strength of those less fortunate than themselves for political gain is a despicable act and such behaviour should be seen for what it is and should not be tolerated or rewarded by any person who calls themselves Irish.

Citizenship brings responsibilities as well as rights and under Article 9 of the Constitution, fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens. We must ask ourselves if we are adhering to that principle if we allow citizenship to be acquired, maintained and passed on without requiring even the most minimal connection or loyalty to the State. Any decision on citizenship policy should have at its core the aim to strengthen the fabric of Irish society, but defining Irish society in an ever-changing world, particularly in an ever-changing Europe, is a problem. Is it that which existed here for many centuries? I do not believe so. Society is organic; it is ever-changing and ever-growing. What we perceive as society today would be unrecognisable to someone alive 50 years ago or even 50 years before then.

Society has benefited from numerous waves of settlers, although some would say it has been the victim of the same phenomenon. The Vikings, the English, Scots, Huguenots, Jews and Muslims have all contributed to a greater or lesser extent to our society. I have no doubt that today's immigrants will also make their contribution.

Citizenship is precious but not exclusive. It should be granted to those who through their commitment have shown they are willing to work to better the lives of all who reside in the State. Qualifying adults as well as children should be given the opportunity to obtain citizenship. While it may take a generation, I am confident the indigenous population will accept the ideal of a multicultural society. We should also consider the attitudes of immigrants. While some who have received Irish citizenship do not and probably never will feel Irish, their children will. Allowing them to contribute to society ensures their children will grow up respecting the country which allowed that to happen. They will not end up resenting a country which marginalised them.

In proposing change to the Constitution, we should not lose sight of the rights it affords to all people, not only those who hold Irish citizenship. Our superior courts have constantly upheld that the Constitution entitles all people the right to be treated with respect, decency and in a non-discriminatory fashion. They have rights as human beings regardless of their citizenship status and are entitled to be protected. The net point is that while they may not be entitled to citizenship, they are entitled to human rights. Global change and European enlargement have given rise to an unstoppable tide of people who are termed non-nationals. There is a need for us to adjust to this tide. We require a degree of flexibility to legislate as appropriate in any given circumstance. In saying this, I am conscious that the constitutional review group chaired by Dr. T.K. Whitaker reported in 1996 that, due to its complexity, citizenship would be more appropriately dealt with in legislation than in the Constitution. The referendum proposes precisely that the detail of citizenship law should be decided in legislation rather than in the Constitution.

Having examined the proposed amendment, I am satisfied that the referendum will not alter the right of individual Irish citizens or those entitled to Irish citizenship to automatically confer citizenship on their children. Nor will it alter the rights of Irish citizens north of the Border to automatically confer Irish citizenship on their children. Just as Irish citizenship should not be up for sale to those who can pay a significant price, it should not simply be given away free to people with little or no link to the country but who can arrange for childbirth to take place here. I welcome the Government's proposal to abolish schemes of investment-based citizenship — the passports for sale scheme — in the Bill. While the Minister should be congratulated for having already ended the scheme by administrative decision, it remains on the Statute Book. People without social, historic or cultural links to Ireland should not be able to freely confer Irish citizenship on their children. Children currently born in Ireland will, in turn, be able to confer Irish citizenship on their own children and grandchildren even if they never reside here.

Irish citizenship automatically confers citizenship and residency rights within the European Union. Economic migrants seeking to gain permanent entry to the EU will logically look for the weakest link in the chain to achieve their goal. Ireland is in danger of becoming that weakest link. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that is not the case. To put it simply, if the amendment as proposed is passed, constitutional entitlement to Irish citizenship will be reserved to children with at least one parent already an Irish citizen or already entitled to Irish citizenship. The entitlement to Irish citizenship of others will be decided by laws to be passed by the Oireachtas.

The purpose of the proposed constitutional amendment is to restore to the Oireachtas the power to legislate on future acquisition of Irish nationality and citizenship of persons born in Ireland neither of whose parents is, or is entitled to be, an Irish citizen.

Previous campaigns to amend the Constitution have been hampered because, while the proposed change was clear, the question of what legislation would be introduced following approval of that change was not. The Government has set out its detailed legislative proposals should the proposed constitutional amendment be passed and has published the draft Irish nationality and citizenship (amendment) Bill 2004. I congratulate the Minister on this initiative as there can be no ambiguity as to what is proposed. If the amendment is passed, the Houses of the Oireachtas will be entitled to propose and amend legislation to meet the many challenges that lie ahead for an ever-increasing mobile society.

Policy on citizenship needs to be carefully regulated and capable of responding to change. It is more appropriate, therefore, to set out immigration policy in our laws than in the Constitution. Laws can be easily and flexibly amended; the Constitution cannot and should not be easily amended. That is the logic behind the Government's constitutional proposal. We have to ask why a person applies for citizenship. Just as marriage is a commitment to a relationship, application for citizenship should show a commitment to the State. If we grant citizenship to children born of people legally residing in the State for three years, should we also consider granting citizenship to the parents? Is it credible that parents who have worked here on renewable visas should, if their employment were to cease, be required to leave taking with them their Irish citizen child? Perhaps we should explore this point further and consider granting such people citizenship.

Let us take the example of a couple who have worked here legally for five years contributing to our society and who, after three years, have a child legally entitled to Irish citizenship. Should they too be entitled to apply for citizenship? In this regard, a profession which comes to mind is the Filipino nurses contributing to our health service. In this way we may help foster a sense of belonging and thus aid integration.

What of a woman who becomes pregnant and claims the unknown father is Irish? What if he does not come forward or cannot be found? Will legislation place on her the responsibility to prove parentage, through DNA and so on, in order to safeguard the constitutional rights of the child of an Irish father?

We also need to ask how under Article 9 of the Constitution, which states "fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens", we reconcile a child born in Ireland not being entitled to citizenship with a 30 year old Australian, by virtue of an Irish grandparent, being entitled to such citizenship? Could such a person be using the grandparent rule to gain access to the EU? Is this a lesser sin than the sin of coming to Ireland to have a child for the very same principle of access?

We should also ask how much we value our citizenship given that in the not too distant past we granted passports to those who invested in this country. I wonder, as a show of commitment, whether applicants for citizenship should be required to relinquish the nationality of their birth and not be allowed retain dual citizenship.

I hope such questions are posed throughout this debate because it is only in posing questions that we will come to a greater understanding of the complexities of the situation, complexities that lead me to believe, as Dr. Whitaker reported in 1996, that citizenship is more appropriately dealt with in legislation than in the Constitution, as stated earlier.

I firmly believe the case has been made that the issue of citizenship is best dealt with by legislation. In supporting the amendment to the Constitution, I do so in the hope the Houses of the Oireachtas will in future be able, by means of legislation, to deal with this complex issue as the situation demands.

I again refer to the timing of this referendum. We must ensure that a coalition of extremes from both sides of the debate is not allowed to hijack this issue and defeat the silent majority's viewpoint. Having looked at the alternatives before us regarding the timing of this referendum, I accept that no matter what date was chosen there were different considerations. While I would have liked greater consultation in advance of the proposal, I am satisfied that the pending legislation will facilitate such consultation. I hope that appropriate time will be afforded to debate the legislation and allow all the complexities to be worked through. The main advantage of 11 June is that an acceptable degree of voter turnout is assured. I place my trust in the silent majority of the people to exercise their democratic right responsibly.

I am convinced that immigration and citizenship will be on our agenda for some time to come as we embrace the new realities of a changing society. Debate on this issue should not be impeded due to constitutional difficulties. In passing this amendment to the Constitution, we will remove that obstacle and allow the Houses of the Oireachtas to respond to public concern now and in the future in the form of legislation, which will be tabled and debated in a reasoned manner and in accordance with the fundamental principals of democracy. That is what is needed and that is what this amendment will achieve.